Amazing Spider-Man 667 1:100 Dell'Otto Variant

[Jaydogrules]

As to your claim that the book was "readily available in 2013" for "$300" again, no.

 

Not a claim, linked a thread from Sept. 2013 where it was reality.

 

The first verified sale of the book was a 9.8 for $665 in November, 2012. That's a little more than a year after it came out and a very strong price for a book that has been highly sought since virtually its release and the buzz on its extraordinary rarity began to percolate.

 

Already mentioned thread linked where multiple people have copies(raw), and a CGC collector is musing about how he had ignored the multiple $300 raws sitting on ebay for ages and would now take it for $500 raw in a second (due to price the spike)

 

I could go on, but nothing new here. We will never know one way or the other, unless Diamond or Marvel speak on it.

 

So let me get this straight, you are taking as gospel the second hand anecdotal account of one boardie from another forum over the publicly available data which explicitly contradicts that (by a whole lot) from the same time period ? You've totally lost me now.

 

That may have been his own unique personal experience but that was not indicative of my own experience, the publicly available data from that time period, nor evidently anyone else who posted in that thread on that board. In fact the entire point of that thread is to complain about how insanely rare the book is.

 

In fact I cited a link to that same board myself where one of them was complaining about not being able to find a copy just three weeks after it came out.

 

-J.

[thirdgreenham]

round and round the mulberry bush....

[CBT]

So let me get this straight

-J.

 

It's already straight, in 2013 there were multiple copies available at what were then "high prices", now low. The book's price jumped massively, and the outstanding copies disappeared.

 

None of that has any bearing on your logic flaw, which is thinking that there is a mandatory causal relationship between print run and number of slabbed copies.

 

You have an unprovable (but reasonable) theory to explain the discrepancy of the number of slabbed copies relative to other "rare" books (ie extra small print run)

Your error has been to continuously present your theory as fact, or to claim it is the only possible theory/explanation.

 

It is a POSSIBLE EXPLANATION, possibly even a PROBABLE one. It is NOT a fact, there is no "PROOF", and other possibilities are valid as well.

 

Your attempt to present theory as fact, and to "talk over" any other possibility are your logical fallacy and problem, respectively...

[CBT]

round and round the mulberry bush....

 

[N/A]

As rfoii adeptly pointed out earlier, your logic is flawed. There is obviously a break in pattern when it comes to the 667, and the break is notable.

 

He didnt do that, and no its not. A "pattern breaking" (if its even true) is again not proof as you incorrectly believe. It's a reason to make your hypothesis, but it proves absolutely nothing.

 

 

As I have pointed out earlier, books from the same time frame, from multiple publishers, with also small print runs have several dozens to more than hundreds of recorded slabs and sales.

 

Meanwhile the 667 does not.

 

That us an immutable fact. Not conjecture.

 

-J.

 

No one is disputing how many are slabbed, that is a fact and not conjecture. Your conjecture is the reason for the discrepancy, no amount of flailing can twist your theory into a fact.

 

You might even be right, unfortunately, no one knows.

 

My logic is perfect, yours is grossly flawed. People have explained it many times and in many ways.

 

Wrong again. No one has "explained" anything. They've just offered their own theories. Or not even that really. They've just tried (poorly) to discredit the one that's generally accepted.

 

You're right, no amount of flailing can twist theory into fact. Yet that's exactly what you're doing. And why ? Why does this book have you so preoccupied ? My "theory" is that the book is rare. Which it is. By every visible metric available to us the book is rare. That is also a fact and not conjecture.

 

Frankly I don't see any "logic" to anything you said. It's far fetched and about as likely as the rainbow unicorn butt theory.

 

-J.

 

This is incorrect. Beginning to end.

 

Your opinion. Again.

 

Peace out.

 

-J.

 

I don't think this means what you think it means.

 

Print run vs distribution has been explained.

Marvel's SOP has been explained

Diamond sales have been explained.

Doesn't generally accepted mean that the explanation is accepted, generally speaking?

 

Yes. All of them theories attempting to explain (or dispute) the book's rarity, which remains a fact.

 

Problem being, you start off in a huge credibility hole when you are trying to prove a negative that is contrary to all publicly available data and metrics.

 

-J.

 

 

 

No, actually. These are all generally accepted.

You are claiming an exception by using slabs and eBay sales. The onus is on you to prove there was an exception and not on anyone to prove there was not.

[N/A]

round and round the mulberry bush....

 

Shine on you crazy diamond.

[Jaydogrules]

So let me get this straight

-J.

 

It's already straight, in 2013 there were multiple copies available at what were then "high prices", now low. The book's price jumped massively, and the outstanding copies disappeared.

 

None of that has any bearing on your logic flaw, which is thinking that there is a mandatory causal relationship between print run and number of slabbed copies.

 

You have an unprovable (but reasonable) theory to explain the discrepancy of the number of slabbed copies relative to other "rare" books (ie extra small print run)

Your error has been to continuously present your theory as fact, or to claim it is the only possible theory/explanation.

 

It is a POSSIBLE EXPLANATION, possibly even a PROBABLE one. It is NOT a fact, there is no "PROOF", and other possibilities are valid as well.

 

Your attempt to present theory as fact, and to "talk over" any other possibility are your logical fallacy and problem, respectively...

 

Sorry Charlie but you are deliberately ignoring the very point of the thread that you have linked, parsed out the experience of one person and are holding that out to be more persuasive than the experience of literally every single other person who posted in that thread as well as all of the publicly available data from the time.

 

Mega fail dude. Mega fail.

 

I think it's probably best you give up in this futile quest to prove a negative at this point and move on. Clearly your obsession with this book that you do not own is causing you to not think clearly.

 

-J.

[Jaydogrules]

As rfoii adeptly pointed out earlier, your logic is flawed. There is obviously a break in pattern when it comes to the 667, and the break is notable.

 

He didnt do that, and no its not. A "pattern breaking" (if its even true) is again not proof as you incorrectly believe. It's a reason to make your hypothesis, but it proves absolutely nothing.

 

 

As I have pointed out earlier, books from the same time frame, from multiple publishers, with also small print runs have several dozens to more than hundreds of recorded slabs and sales.

 

Meanwhile the 667 does not.

 

That us an immutable fact. Not conjecture.

 

-J.

 

No one is disputing how many are slabbed, that is a fact and not conjecture. Your conjecture is the reason for the discrepancy, no amount of flailing can twist your theory into a fact.

 

You might even be right, unfortunately, no one knows.

 

My logic is perfect, yours is grossly flawed. People have explained it many times and in many ways.

 

Wrong again. No one has "explained" anything. They've just offered their own theories. Or not even that really. They've just tried (poorly) to discredit the one that's generally accepted.

 

You're right, no amount of flailing can twist theory into fact. Yet that's exactly what you're doing. And why ? Why does this book have you so preoccupied ? My "theory" is that the book is rare. Which it is. By every visible metric available to us the book is rare. That is also a fact and not conjecture.

 

Frankly I don't see any "logic" to anything you said. It's far fetched and about as likely as the rainbow unicorn butt theory.

 

-J.

 

This is incorrect. Beginning to end.

 

Your opinion. Again.

 

Peace out.

 

-J.

 

I don't think this means what you think it means.

 

Print run vs distribution has been explained.

Marvel's SOP has been explained

Diamond sales have been explained.

Doesn't generally accepted mean that the explanation is accepted, generally speaking?

 

Yes. All of them theories attempting to explain (or dispute) the book's rarity, which remains a fact.

 

Problem being, you start off in a huge credibility hole when you are trying to prove a negative that is contrary to all publicly available data and metrics.

 

-J.

 

 

 

No, actually. These are all generally accepted.

You are claiming an exception by using slabs and eBay sales. The onus is on you to prove there was an exception and not on anyone to prove there was not.

 

Give it up home slice.

 

The facts and figures before us already establish rarity.

 

You have been attempting to prove it is not despite these facts and figures.

 

You have failed.

 

Next!

 

-J.

[N/A]

Round and round we go. Where we stop only Jaydog "knows"

[N/A]

As rfoii adeptly pointed out earlier, your logic is flawed. There is obviously a break in pattern when it comes to the 667, and the break is notable.

 

He didnt do that, and no its not. A "pattern breaking" (if its even true) is again not proof as you incorrectly believe. It's a reason to make your hypothesis, but it proves absolutely nothing.

 

 

As I have pointed out earlier, books from the same time frame, from multiple publishers, with also small print runs have several dozens to more than hundreds of recorded slabs and sales.

 

Meanwhile the 667 does not.

 

That us an immutable fact. Not conjecture.

 

-J.

 

No one is disputing how many are slabbed, that is a fact and not conjecture. Your conjecture is the reason for the discrepancy, no amount of flailing can twist your theory into a fact.

 

You might even be right, unfortunately, no one knows.

 

My logic is perfect, yours is grossly flawed. People have explained it many times and in many ways.

 

Wrong again. No one has "explained" anything. They've just offered their own theories. Or not even that really. They've just tried (poorly) to discredit the one that's generally accepted.

 

You're right, no amount of flailing can twist theory into fact. Yet that's exactly what you're doing. And why ? Why does this book have you so preoccupied ? My "theory" is that the book is rare. Which it is. By every visible metric available to us the book is rare. That is also a fact and not conjecture.

 

Frankly I don't see any "logic" to anything you said. It's far fetched and about as likely as the rainbow unicorn butt theory.

 

-J.

 

This is incorrect. Beginning to end.

 

Your opinion. Again.

 

Peace out.

 

-J.

 

I don't think this means what you think it means.

 

Print run vs distribution has been explained.

Marvel's SOP has been explained

Diamond sales have been explained.

Doesn't generally accepted mean that the explanation is accepted, generally speaking?

 

Yes. All of them theories attempting to explain (or dispute) the book's rarity, which remains a fact.

 

Problem being, you start off in a huge credibility hole when you are trying to prove a negative that is contrary to all publicly available data and metrics.

 

-J.

 

 

 

No, actually. These are all generally accepted.

You are claiming an exception by using slabs and eBay sales. The onus is on you to prove there was an exception and not on anyone to prove there was not.

 

Give it up home slice.

 

The facts and figures before us already establish rarity.

 

You have been attempting to prove it is not despite these facts and figures.

 

You have failed.

 

Next!

 

-J.

 

It doesn't prove print run no matter how many times you claim that it does.

[Jaydogrules]

Anyone attempting to reason with Mr. Dog has already lost. In fact, you lost the moment you glanced at the thread title.

 

Indeed. Especially if you have no facts and attempt to represent generalizations and theories as "facts", while ignoring the actual publicly available facts.

 

That happens a lot around here.

 

-J.

[CBT]

Sorry J Roc, you've lost on all fronts. You are just repeating yourself at this point, regarding already settled things.

 

/Thread

 

 

[Jaydogrules]

As rfoii adeptly pointed out earlier, your logic is flawed. There is obviously a break in pattern when it comes to the 667, and the break is notable.

 

He didnt do that, and no its not. A "pattern breaking" (if its even true) is again not proof as you incorrectly believe. It's a reason to make your hypothesis, but it proves absolutely nothing.

 

 

As I have pointed out earlier, books from the same time frame, from multiple publishers, with also small print runs have several dozens to more than hundreds of recorded slabs and sales.

 

Meanwhile the 667 does not.

 

That us an immutable fact. Not conjecture.

 

-J.

 

No one is disputing how many are slabbed, that is a fact and not conjecture. Your conjecture is the reason for the discrepancy, no amount of flailing can twist your theory into a fact.

 

You might even be right, unfortunately, no one knows.

 

My logic is perfect, yours is grossly flawed. People have explained it many times and in many ways.

 

Wrong again. No one has "explained" anything. They've just offered their own theories. Or not even that really. They've just tried (poorly) to discredit the one that's generally accepted.

 

You're right, no amount of flailing can twist theory into fact. Yet that's exactly what you're doing. And why ? Why does this book have you so preoccupied ? My "theory" is that the book is rare. Which it is. By every visible metric available to us the book is rare. That is also a fact and not conjecture.

 

Frankly I don't see any "logic" to anything you said. It's far fetched and about as likely as the rainbow unicorn butt theory.

 

-J.

 

This is incorrect. Beginning to end.

 

Your opinion. Again.

 

Peace out.

 

-J.

 

I don't think this means what you think it means.

 

Print run vs distribution has been explained.

Marvel's SOP has been explained

Diamond sales have been explained.

Doesn't generally accepted mean that the explanation is accepted, generally speaking?

 

Yes. All of them theories attempting to explain (or dispute) the book's rarity, which remains a fact.

 

Problem being, you start off in a huge credibility hole when you are trying to prove a negative that is contrary to all publicly available data and metrics.

 

-J.

 

 

 

No, actually. These are all generally accepted.

You are claiming an exception by using slabs and eBay sales. The onus is on you to prove there was an exception and not on anyone to prove there was not.

 

Give it up home slice.

 

The facts and figures before us already establish rarity.

 

You have been attempting to prove it is not despite these facts and figures.

 

You have failed.

 

Next!

 

-J.

 

It doesn't prove print run no matter how many times you claim that it does.

 

No, it proves it's crazy rare.

 

Although the rarity (as well as subsequently low distribution) is inextricably linked to a crazy low print run. Cause meet effect.

 

-J.

[Jaydogrules]

Sorry J Roc, you've lost on all fronts. You are just repeating yourself at this point, regarding already settled things.

 

/Thread

 

 

If you ever stumble upon any data points, excessive copies of the book laying around somewhere (anywhere?), or any verifiable sales that are heretofore unknown please feel free to check back and share.

 

-J.

[Lazyboy]

The only fact that we know is that the book is rare.

 

No, the only facts we know are that the book has been (relatively) rare on the highly visible parts of the secondary market and the book has made (relatively) few trips to CGC HQ... so far. Neither of which tell us anything about the total number of copies printed or extant.

[CBT]

Sorry J Roc, you've lost on all fronts. You are just repeating yourself at this point, regarding already settled things.

 

/Thread

 

 

If you ever stumble upon any data points, excessive copies of the book laying around somewhere (anywhere?), or any verifiable sales that are heretofore unknown please feel free to check back and share.

 

-J.

 

You are proving your ignorance , none of those things have anything to do with the beating you have taken. At this point, people are just feeling sorry for you

[N/A]

As rfoii adeptly pointed out earlier, your logic is flawed. There is obviously a break in pattern when it comes to the 667, and the break is notable.

 

He didnt do that, and no its not. A "pattern breaking" (if its even true) is again not proof as you incorrectly believe. It's a reason to make your hypothesis, but it proves absolutely nothing.

 

 

As I have pointed out earlier, books from the same time frame, from multiple publishers, with also small print runs have several dozens to more than hundreds of recorded slabs and sales.

 

Meanwhile the 667 does not.

 

That us an immutable fact. Not conjecture.

 

-J.

 

No one is disputing how many are slabbed, that is a fact and not conjecture. Your conjecture is the reason for the discrepancy, no amount of flailing can twist your theory into a fact.

 

You might even be right, unfortunately, no one knows.

 

My logic is perfect, yours is grossly flawed. People have explained it many times and in many ways.

 

Wrong again. No one has "explained" anything. They've just offered their own theories. Or not even that really. They've just tried (poorly) to discredit the one that's generally accepted.

 

You're right, no amount of flailing can twist theory into fact. Yet that's exactly what you're doing. And why ? Why does this book have you so preoccupied ? My "theory" is that the book is rare. Which it is. By every visible metric available to us the book is rare. That is also a fact and not conjecture.

 

Frankly I don't see any "logic" to anything you said. It's far fetched and about as likely as the rainbow unicorn butt theory.

 

-J.

 

This is incorrect. Beginning to end.

 

Your opinion. Again.

 

Peace out.

 

-J.

 

I don't think this means what you think it means.

 

Print run vs distribution has been explained.

Marvel's SOP has been explained

Diamond sales have been explained.

Doesn't generally accepted mean that the explanation is accepted, generally speaking?

 

Yes. All of them theories attempting to explain (or dispute) the book's rarity, which remains a fact.

 

Problem being, you start off in a huge credibility hole when you are trying to prove a negative that is contrary to all publicly available data and metrics.

 

-J.

 

 

 

No, actually. These are all generally accepted.

You are claiming an exception by using slabs and eBay sales. The onus is on you to prove there was an exception and not on anyone to prove there was not.

 

Give it up home slice.

 

The facts and figures before us already establish rarity.

 

You have been attempting to prove it is not despite these facts and figures.

 

You have failed.

 

Next!

 

-J.

 

It doesn't prove print run no matter how many times you claim that it does.

 

No, it proves it's crazy rare.

 

Although the rarity (as well as subsequently low distribution) is inextricably linked to a crazy low print run. Cause meet effect.

 

-J.

 

Correlation does not equal causation. Live it. Love it.

 

 

[N/A]

Sorry J Roc, you've lost on all fronts. You are just repeating yourself at this point, regarding already settled things.

 

/Thread

 

 

If you ever stumble upon any data points, excessive copies of the book laying around somewhere (anywhere?), or any verifiable sales that are heretofore unknown please feel free to check back and share.

 

-J.

 

You are proving your ignorance , none of those things have anything to do with the beating you have taken. At this point, people are just feeling sorry for you

 

I'm feeling sorry for those of us trying to reason with the unreasonable. Yay for post count!

[CBT]

The only fact that we know is that the book is rare.

 

No, the only facts we know are that the book has been (relatively) rare on the highly visible parts of the secondary market and the book has made (relatively) few trips to CGC HQ... so far. Neither of which tell us anything about the total number of copies printed or extant.

 

Yup. Amazing the willful ignorance to avoid this truth no matter how many times its explained to him

 

Maybe he is the shill account I linked earlier:

 

http://ebay.com/itm/The-Amazing-Spider-Man-667-Variant-Only-100-made-RARE-/221276185158?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item338516a246&rmvSB=true&nma=true&si=yuz1wm6chEDAsyag0nmn7wOntGM%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

 

[revat]

I can't get enough of this thread. It just seems sooooo obvious that one side simply doesn't understand basic logic and reasoning.

 

But which side am I talking about....?